New licence law - a summary

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi everyone

After a couple of people asked for it, I have made a summary of Part 62, and reduced it for Microlighting only.

This should make it a bit easier to understand, but as the Technical standards comprises of the sylabus only, I can't really work on that, you will just have to find your way around it.

If you need any advice though, please ask. I have been working with this stuff for a long time and still battle to make sense of it sometimes

http://www.comefly.co.za/Part62sum.htm

or word format

http://www.comefly.co.za/Part62sum.doc

[150]

FF,

thanks a great summary, a lot of work, and it actually answers my questions which I adressed to you earlier. :D :D :D :D :D

Any way happy with it or not, this is another issue.

And I have seen something else, not a concern now, let the others react to it first

Thanks again

[ZU-ANE]

Hey FF, excelent summary, am I correct in understanding that there will be no type or class rating for weight shift amphibian? If so why not?

[Fairy Flycatcher]

, am I correct in understanding that there will be no type or class rating for weight shift amphibian? If so why not?

You are correct here, this is according to the latest version. The previous versions did make reference to amphibian trikes. I have no idea why it has been changed. I know there are a couple of amphibian designs world-wide, so it may just mean that all types of trikes are included in the category, amphibian or not. (Not sure if this is too much to hope for)


The other interesting thing is that the previous versions only refered to the term "microlights", when dealing with microlight aerotowing, but now specifically only refer to "conventional control microlights" I wonder where that leaves all the trikers out there towing hang gliders. I know of at least 3 doing it with trikes in SA already, but we will be the first to do it with fixed wing? ? So who made that law?

[150]

, am I correct in understanding that there will be no type or class rating for weight shift amphibian? If so why not?

You are correct here, this is according to the latest version. The previous versions did make reference to amphibian trikes. I have no idea why it has been changed. I know there are a couple of amphibian designs world-wide, so it may just mean that all types of trikes are included in the category, amphibian or not.

May I correct you it is for sure a couple of hundreds, but i think a couple of thousands is closer.
This was my question as well, but not that important.

Privileges of the recreational pilot licence
The pilot may fly NTCA aircraft
- on which he is rated, -
- not for reward or in the provision of an air service ( unless he has an Instructors rating and or Part 96 authorization in terms of Part 141 - schools and or Part 96 – commercial operation of NTCA
- under VMC
- by day only
- in accordance with part 94 (Operation of NTCA)

Back to what is a real concern, can a recreational pilot under part 141 or 96 be paid for his/her service flying for the operation.
The above does not state that clearly, it is standing not for reward, or in the provision of an air service.......etc.

Oh, last one for the time being what is part94

[ZU-ANE]

Is this document final or can changes still be made???

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Back to what is a real concern, can a recreational pilot under part 141 or 96 be paid for his/her service flying for the operation.
The above does not state that clearly, it is standing not for reward, or in the provision of an air service.......etc.

Oh, last one for the time being what is part94

Have a look at the full version, Reg 62.03.5 (3), it states clearly " notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (1) [which states that you may not fly for reward], the holder of a recreational pilot licence may exercise the privileges of his licence for reward or remuneration in an aircraft operated in terms of Part96, provided he or she is the holder of a valid Part 96 authorization issued in terms of Part 14 or this Part"

I think it is pretty clear.


Part 94 is "The operation of Non Type Certified Aircraft" (as apposed to Part 96 which is "The commercial operation of Non Type Certified Aircraft"

Is this document final or can changes still be made???

No aviation law is final, ever. (Even our country's constitution can be changed with a 2/3 majority)

The fact is that it might take a while to make changes. Roleplayers must be consulted when making laws, and in my opinion we were not. On that basis alone we can delay the whole process and take another couple of years of confusion before everything gets implemented.

I want the new structure of MISASA to give us proper representation on CARCOM, and I think the best way to go about everything is to let it go through now, and then get MISASA to change or address anything with CARCOM which we need changed.

If there is something which is a real big problem, let me know and I will assist you in preparing a presentation to CARCOM.

[C205]

Hi FF
Thanks for the summary have printed it out and will read it when I have some time. Looks quite clear though. It seems to me the biggest difference now is between weight-shift and three-axis as this will require more training than currently required?

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Hi FF
Thanks for the summary have printed it out and will read it when I have some time. Looks quite clear though. It seems to me the biggest difference now is between weight-shift and three-axis as this will require more training than currently required?

Hi C205. I love your signature, it makes me smile no matter how often I read it.

The training is actually a little less under the new law, and allows more at the discretion of the instructor. You need 10 hours solo, where before you needed 15. The hour requirement when converting between categories, (between fixed wing and flex wing) is still at the discretion of the testing instructor.

But the instructor conversion requirements between types is a lot stricter, which can only be good.

[RudiGreyling]

Hi FF
Thanks for the summary have printed it out and will read it when I have some time. Looks quite clear though. It seems to me the biggest difference now is between weight-shift and three-axis as this will require more training than currently required?

Hi C205. I love your signature, it makes me smile no matter how often I read it.

The training is actually a little less under the new law, and allows more at the discretion of the instructor. You need 10 hours solo, where before you needed 15. The hour requirement when converting between categories, (between fixed wing and flex wing) is still at the discretion of the testing instructor.

But the instructor conversion requirements between types is a lot stricter, which can only be good.

FF: Thanx a lot for the summary I will read it later in detail...

C205: Ditto on that question. May I ask before reading everyhting what is the requirements then for converting from weightsift to 3 axis? Up to the instructor?

FF: Actually my situation is slightly different, I want to go from old MPL weight shift to old PPL 3 Axis. With some of the new 3 axis planes falling in both MPL and PPL category (Cheetah for instance) what is the best cheapest route...

[Fairy Flycatcher]

C205: Ditto on that question. May I ask before reading everyhting what is the requirements then for converting from weightsift to 3 axis? Up to the instructor?

Well, the law actually says that you have to meet all the requirements for the licence, including cross countries and total of 20 hours, but you can get credit for your theory (so if you look at the theory course we've written, you only have to do 3-axis specific "principles of flight" if you come from weight shift), and the hour and cross country requirements can be relaxed at the discretion of the testing instructor (not the training instructor)

FF: Actually my situation is slightly different, I want to go from old MPL weight shift to old PPL 3 Axis. With some of the new 3 axis planes falling in both MPL and PPL category (Cheetah for instance) what is the best cheapest route...

At the moment, and under the new law, you can get 25 hours credit from your MPL (both types) to your PPL. This is the law, but is not really practiced by CAA licencing, who on most occasions will only give you credit for your 3-axis MPL. (They tend to make little in-house rulings at CAA licencing, and you have to fight realy hard to get the law implemented). The new law (Part 61 PPL) clearly states that you can get up to 25 hours credit from any category microlight, gyrocopter or glider, so this might help with clarity once it is implemented.


You are, however, going to battle to find a PPL school who will give you any credit (I think money talks and insurance is the REAL law) If you do your conversion onto a Cheetah with a MPL instructor, you must redo a conversoin with a PPL instructor onto that type if you want to then fly it as PPL, and visa versa. So as far as cost is concerned, you have to go to the various schools and find out who will assist with what.

[RudiGreyling]

FF: Thank you for answering.

[150]

Back to what is a real concern, can a recreational pilot under part 141 or 96 be paid for his/her service flying for the operation.
The above does not state that clearly, it is standing not for reward, or in the provision of an air service.......etc.

Oh, last one for the time being what is part94

Have a look at the full version, Reg 62.03.5 (3), it states clearly " notwithstanding the provisions of subregulation (1) [which states that you may not fly for reward], the holder of a recreational pilot licence may exercise the privileges of his licence for reward or remuneration in an aircraft operated in terms of Part96, provided he or she is the holder of a valid Part 96 authorization issued in terms of Part 14 or this Part"

I think it is pretty clear.

FF,
Pretty clear means for me as how I understand it, I am not a lawyer

Yes you can fly for Reward under certain conditions, under part 96 with a PPL or Recreational Pilot Licence

Correct or the other way around, Wrong

I know I am difficult

[Fairy Flycatcher]

Yes you can fly for Reward under certain conditions, under part 96 with a PPL or Recreational Pilot Licence

Correct or the other way around, Wrong

I know I am difficult

The law states that you may not fly with your Recreational Pilots Licence for reward or in an air service.

Then the law states that there are two exceptions to the law:

1. If you have a Part 96 Authorization, which is a special rating on your PPL or RPL, issued by the CAA, and you are working under an Air Services Licence with a valid Operating Certificate

2. If you have an Instructors rating, which is a special rating on your RPL, issued by either the CAA or the ARO, and you are working for an approved school, with a valid Part 141 "operating certificate"


If this still is not clear enough, maybe I am missing your question? Please don't feel too silly to ask again.

[ZU-ANE]

Hi FF, let me see if I get this:
1. If you are a current CPL you can do freelance comercial work
2. If you are a RPL or PPL with a comercial rating you are not allowed to do freelance work but have to fall under a flight school or some other comercial opperator?? If so why?
Does this mean you cannot go gamecounting etc and be paid for it if you are not a registered operator???